Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Hoyland v Asda Stores Limited
Court of Session - (5 April 2006)

Issues

(1) Contract of Employment
(2) Sex Discrimination
(3) Maternity Leave

Facts

This case was originally reported in May 2005, and has since been referred to the Court of Session. The facts of the case were that Ms Hoyland had been employed by Asda in September 1998 and went on maternity leave in 2002. As a consequence of her maternity leave, she was absent for 183 days in that particular calendar year.

Asda operated a bonus scheme which awarded employees for their work. The bonus which was payable was pro rata to reflect part-time employment and absences of 8 consecutive weeks or more during the year. This included maternity leave. This meant that Ms Hoyland's bonus payment was reduced to reflect her 183 days of absence and she was paid a bonus of £94.48.

She made a complaint to the Employment Tribunal arguing that the reduction in her bonus constituted sex discrimination and that it was a pregnancy related detriment within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Both the tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that Asda had been entitled to pay Ms Hoyland a pro-rated bonus to reflect the time she had been present at work. The EAT went on to find that she had suffered a detriment in respect of Asda's failure to pay her bonus in respect of the two week period of her compulsory maternity leave, and she was awarded a bonus payment in respect of that period (an additional £5.20).

The matter was then referred to the Court of Session.

Decision

The Court of Session upheld the EAT's decision in finding that Asda was entitled to make a pro rata reduction of Ms Hoyland's annual bonus.

Comments

The issue regarding bonus payments to employees on maternity leave remains unclear. The Court noted in this case that Ms Hoyland's entitlement to the bonus payment arose out of the Contract of Employment and, as such, could not be the subject of a Sex Discrimination Act claim. However, it could be considered under the equal pay legislation, a claim which was not made in this instance.

Rachel Billen -Associate Solicitor, Commercial Department at Veitch Penny.
Tel: 01392 278381, Fax: 01392 410247, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it